Laserfiche WebLink
<br />February 10, 2009 IVolume 3 I No.3 <br /> <br />Zoning Bulletin <br /> <br />the purpose of theWWPD's restrictions was to protect the character of <br />the surrounding area. Thus, found the court, the Lanes' equitable waiver <br />request was not made necessary "by the physical characteristics of the <br />lot." It was made necessary' by the WWPD's prohibition of permanent <br />buildings within its boundaries-which was a use restriction. <br />In rejecting the Lanes' argument that the ordinance establishing the <br />WWPD was a setback provision, the court further explained th~t: "Just <br />as the boundaries of a residential district [we]re not a setback for the per- <br />mitted uses of an abutting zone, the boundaries of the WWPD d[id] not <br />merely serve as a setback requirement incidental to the otherwise per- <br />mitted uses of the underlying zone." The WWPD was an "autonomous <br />overlay district mandating its own restrictions above and beyond those <br />of the underlying district." <br /> <br />See also: Harrington v. Town of Warner, 152 N.H. 74, 872 A.2d 990 (2005). <br /> <br />,Case Note:The court also found that the plain language of the or- <br />dinance supported the court's conclusion that the ordinance was a . <br />use and not a dimensional (or area) requirement. The ordinance per- <br />mitted any of a list of "uses that d[id] not result in the erection of <br />any permanent building." Thus, the restriction on the construction <br />of permanent buildings was a use restriction. <br /> <br />Nonconforming Use-After town bans mining, <br />landowner asserts its mining activities are a <br />lawful nonconforming use <br /> <br />Landowner also contends it has a vested right to mine its <br />property <br /> <br />Citation: Glacial Aggregates LLC v. Town of Yorkshire, 57 A.D.3d 1362, <br />869 N. Y.S.2d 718 (4th Dep't 2008) . <br /> <br />NEW YORK (12/31/2008)-In 2001; the town adopted a zoning or- <br />dinance (the "Ordinance"), which prohibited mining within the town <br />without a special permit. <br />Glacial Aggregates, LLC ("Glacial") owned 216 acres of land in the <br />town. After the Ordinance was enacted, Glacial brought a legal action <br />against the town. Glacial asked the court to declare that: (1) its mining <br />of sand and gravel aggregate on its property was a lawful nonconform- <br />ing use; and (2) it had acquired a vested right to mine the property. <br />Prior to the town's adoption of the Ordinance, G.lacial had: applied <br />for, received and renewed its state Department of Environmental Conser- <br />vation ("DEC") mining permit; allowed two sand and gravel companies <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />@ 2009 Thomson Reuters <br /> <br />94 <br /> <br />'J <br />